I have picked two sectors of society where the call for change and reform has been shouting in our ears for decades with little to show for it: health care and education. These are also service industries, which is where most of us work these days. Both of these fields are in the throes of the language of reform. But most reform efforts are more about improvement rather than rethinking something more fundamental. The health care “reform” is mostly about cost control, who pays, and increasing the pressure on standardization. There is no reform in that conversation, just better or different management. Real reform in health care will come from changing our relationship with our service provider and having service providers change their relationship with each other. In consulting terms, we need more balanced contracting, more joint discovery, and a new dialogue. This is starting to occur, and Chapter Twelve presents a great example from a very special surgeon, Paul Uhlig. Like health care, the current conversation about education reform is also not reform; it is just more controls and imposed standards masquerading as reform. True reform will shift our thinking about the culture of the classroom, accountability of the learner, and the relationship between teacher and student. An example of this from an amazing high school teacher, Ward Mailliard, is in Chapter Eighteen. — 15: 230-240
What needs reaffirmation in this edition of the book is that teams and personal relationships are still critical to technical and business success. The value of teams and relationships is now more widely accepted than it was in the past, at least intellectually. We may not be any better at working together, but at least we know it matters and want to create more cooperative workplaces, whether virtual or in person. One reason the ideas in this book have endured is not so much that specific consulting skills are presented in such overconfident specificity; it is more because of the attention the book gives to the emotional and personal dimensions of our workplaces. Even now, with all the rhetoric given to relationships, personal development, and even spirituality, our institutions still operate as if strategy, structure, and technology are what really matter. Relationships continue to be treated as a necessary inconvenience—as if they have to be endured and wherever there is an opportunity to automate a transaction or communicate electronically, we take it. In 2000 most telephone conversations involved a machine on one end; now it is text messages, e-mail, and, if I want to look personal, Facebook, LinkedIn, and their successors. These are often the media of choice. Even more, we encourage people to work at home, where human interaction is minimized in the name of serenity and a more balanced life. What is difficult about managing relationships is that something is demanded of us that technology and automated routines do not require: the need to know ourselves and be authentic. Authenticity is simply being honest with ourselves and being direct and honest with others. For whatever the reason, authenticity continues to be rare in our workplaces. Most interactions carry an element of role play, positioning, and strategy. All are reflections of our wish to control our environment and the people in it. In some ways, this book is a long and detailed description of the landscape of authenticity. What has stood the test of time is that this rare act is not only good for the soul but also works very well. “Authentic consultant” is not an oxymoron but a compelling competitive advantage, if, unfortunately, a rare one. What is still difficult about authenticity is that it is a high-risk strategy. It swims upstream in a culture of control, which is where most of our organizations remain. It also demands some faith in ourselves: we have to be tuned into the feeling dimension of our connection with others. Most of us have spent our days developing our brain and have left our body and its feeling parts behind, to be reclaimed after work hours. So even when we decide to risk being authentic, we might not know how. Valuing the relationship between consultant and client, or teacher and student, or service provider and customer, and defining how to manage that relationship is where this book has found its niche. The intent of this revision is to deepen and expand that white space between strategy, structure, and technology that we label relationship. — 18: 274-297
My use of the term flawless consulting may sound presumptuous, but it is not accidental. A basic value underlying this book is that there is in each of us the possibility of perfection. There is a consulting professional inside each of us, and our task is to allow that flawless consultant to emerge. On its surface, this book is about methods and techniques. But each technique carries a consistent message more important than any method: that each act that expresses trust in ourselves and belief in the validity of our own experience is always the right path to follow. Each act that is manipulative or filled with pretense is always self-destructive. — 31: 466-471
The consultant needs to constantly keep in mind how much the client is owning feelings versus talking as if he or she is just an observer of the organization. — 34: 519-520
The confusion is between collaborating on the technical aspects of the problem (which I don’t mean) and collaborating on how the stages of the consultation will be carried out (which I do mean). Here’s an example of where you draw the line between them: Areas of Collaboration Areas of Expertise Expressing the wants of the client Circuit design Planning how to inform the organization of the study Training design Deciding who is involved in the discovery phase Questionnaire design Generating the right kind of data Package design Interpreting the results of discovery Systems analysis Deciding how to make a change Pricing strategy Regardless of the area of expertise, the way the consultation process itself is managed (the left side of this list) will greatly affect the client’s use of even the most technical expertise. The more the consultative process can be collaborative, the better the odds for success are after the consultant has left. — 47: 718-735
Don’t take it personally. This is the toughest to do. The reaction of the client to your work is more a response to the process of dependency and receiving help than it is resistance to your own personal style. You do have your own peculiarities; so does everyone else. If, however, you start agonizing about them during the feedback process, even to yourself, you’re in big trouble. The resistance you encounter during the process is resistance to the prospect of having to act on difficult organizational issues. Don’t be seduced into taking it personally. Engagement and — 63: 952-956
Change the conversation to change the culture. Encourage dialogue that is void of blame, history, attention to who is not in the room, and too quick to action. Structure the conversation toward personal responsibility, questions of purpose and meaning, and what will be unique and new about the proposed changes. — 64: 968-970
In the final analysis, you are not responsible for the use of your expertise and recommendations. If consultants really believe that they should be responsible for implementing their recommendations, they should immediately get jobs as line managers and stop calling themselves consultants. — 66: 997-999
Both client overdependence and client disdain are bad for the consultant. — 66: 1003-1004
The mistake we can make is to take on the rehabilitation of that division as a personal objective. The manager of that division, not the consultant, is responsible for its rehabilitation. Taking over the manager’s rights, including the right to fail, leads to consulting errors. It can also lead to frustration and despair, for you may be taking on a task that you are not positioned to accomplish. Your own responsibility as a consultant is to present information as simply, directly, and assertively as possible and to complete the tasks of each phase of the consultation. That’s all there is to do, and it’s within each of us to do that perfectly. — 69: 1054-1059
Before getting into the actual steps in a contracting meeting, here is a list of the consulting competencies required to complete the business of contracting. You should be able to Ask direct questions about who the client is and who the less visible parties to the contract are. Elicit the client’s expectations of you. Clearly and simply state what you want from the client. Say no or postpone a project that in your judgment has less than a 50/50 chance of success. Probe directly for the client’s underlying concerns about losing control. Probe directly for the client’s underlying concerns about exposure and vulnerability. Give direct verbal support and affirmation to the client. When the contracting meeting is not going well, discuss directly with the client why it is not. More detailed competencies will surface as we work through a contracting meeting in the next chapter. This list, however, contains the crucial ones, which many of us have a hard time doing. The hard time we have is not really with the action itself, but with valuing the importance of these actions. Having direct discussions with the client—about control, vulnerability, your wants, the chance of success, and how the discussion is going—makes the difference between an average contracting meeting and an excellent one. The problem is that it is possible to have a contracting meeting in which none of these subjects are — 74: 1127-1140
The rationalization is, “Well, I’ll deal with these areas if it becomes necessary.” It is always necessary to talk about control, vulnerability, your wants, and chances of success. — 75: 1141-1143
Come close, but not too close. Despite what the line manager says to you, there is always some desire for confirmation that the organization is doing the best that can be done under the circumstances. This desire at times can be stronger than the desire to solve the problem. — 78: 1195-1196
When People Mean They Express It by Saying I don’t like it. “I don’t understand it.” I don’t want to do it. “Let’s get more data.” or “I’ll get back to you.” or “Let me talk it over with my staff.” I don’t understand a word you are saying. Nothing Do as I say, dammit! “Why don’t you think it over and get back to me?” I wouldn’t let your group even get close to my organization. “We want to talk to some other people about alternative approaches to this problem and we’ll let you know.” — 105: 1610-1626
The reason consultants feel as if they are the victim of the resistance is that the client’s discomfort is being expressed indirectly. If the client were able to be authentic and put the concern directly into words by saying—”I am concerned I am losing control of this group,” or “I feel I am ill equipped to handle this particular situation,” or “People expect things from me that I just can’t deliver”—we consultants would not feel attacked. We would feel very supportive toward the manager. The manager’s direct expression of underlying concerns is not resistance. Resistance occurs only when the concerns about facing the difficult realities and the choice not to deal with them are expressed indirectly. They are expressed indirectly by blaming lack of detailed data, not enough time, impracticality, not enough budget, lack of understanding by “those people,” and so on, as the reasons not to proceed with a project or implement some recommendations. — 157: 2394-2401
Not surprisingly, organizations that are in serious trouble tend to be the most difficult clients. They need to change the most and are least able to do it. For low-performing organizations, the tension of failure is so high that they are unable to take one more risk, and so instead they hold on to their unsatisfactory performance. In these extreme cases, there is probably not much consultants can do to surface the resistance to change. We may just have to accept it. OGRES AND ANGELS In any organization, there are certain managers who are well known for their disdain for support groups and internal consultants. — 164: 2505-2510